Fair Criticism

Yesterday danny of danny's blog cabin commented with some very fair and rational criticisms of the President's planned troop surge. Rather than trying to reply to his five (very fair) criticisms of the plan in the comments section, I though I'd put it up front for all to see.

Before getting our feet wet, let me say a few things:

• elgreggo had some pretty nice analysis of the political fallout of this decision in yesterday's comment section. I recommend checking it out.
• I wish we could just pull out of Iraq and pretend it doesn't exist. I, like most Americans, am tired of the war, tired of hearing all the bad news, and tired of talking about it.
• I hate having to defend sending more troops there, but, sadly, it seems to be the best of our three ridiculously over-simplified options (a. pull out; b. stay as-is; c. troop surge).
• Are danny and I likely to change each other's minds? It is possible, but unlikely. Rather, I hope we can all see that there are very rational people on both sides who can have a discussion about complex issues without devolving into the typical political Freakshow style.

With that being said, here are danny's five points and my responses:

1. It was tried in August of this year and it didn't work. The neighborhoods taken by US troops were pacified for a time, but as soon as they left, the violence returned.
   
   
   • I concede this point in part. Something similar was tried in August, but that is not to say that THIS plan was tried. 43 heard this criticism and laid out the differences in his speech last night. One he didn't mention was that the August plan was a U.S. only venture. This one has some pretty serious commitments from the Iraqi government behind it (whether they fulfill those commitments is a big question mark). The problem back then, as danny mentioned, was that after a neighborhood was secured the U.S. forces would hang around a few days, then leave. The insurgents who were driven out simply returned a few days later. The goal of this plan is to ensure the "hold" part of the "sweep and hold" strategy. Whether or not this will work is a good question that will now be answered in time.
   
   
   
2. 20,000 is not enough. McCain says this and he also says that it should be for at least 18 months.
   
   
   • You might be right. Maybe we should send more if we really want to make it work. This number--a shade over 20k--is actually the very low end of McCain's estimate (3,500-5,000 per brigade, McCain wanted 5-6 brigades in Baghdad). That is somewhat beside the point--will 20,000 fail to do what 40,000 would do? Maybe. But does anyone really wish Bush would send even more than this?
   
   
   
3. There aren't 20,000 more troops to send in. We're already stretched thin with multiple and extended tours.
   
   
   • Conceded, again in part. We are stretched thin--very thin. Too thin for my comfort. But we are again at a risk-reward point. If, out of the three options (pull out, stay as-is, troop surge), the first two are destined to failure, but the third, no matter how painful, gives us a chance at success, it is my position that it is worth trying. If we pull out the Iraqi government will fall. If we stay as-is we eventually will be forced to pull out anyway (even if not for years, we can't win on the current pace). That leaves the troop surge as our best hope of the three. Does that mean stretching? Yes. Does it mean stretching even thinner than we should be stretching? Yes. Does that mean it's impossible to do? Not impossible, just very taxing.
   
   
   
4. My congressman, Ike Skelton, has been saying that it's way too late for this type of strategy.
   
   
   • I respect Ike Skelton very much. What is implied in his statement is that there was a time when a troop surge, in his opinion, would have been successful (or at least stood a good chance of being so). On this point I agree with him--we should have had more troops going in and not botched the demilitarization of the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard. Where I disagree with him is in his assertion that it is now "too" late. Is it late? Yes. Is the situation so far gone that this plan is destined to fail? I don't think any of us can say that with authority--not even Ike Skelton.
   
   
   
5. Abizaid and Casey, the (former) generals on the ground, oppose this plan. Bush has said all along that he'll listen to his generals when it comes to troop levels. Then when they oppose his new plan he kicks them to the curb. He'll say that they've failed and need to be replaced, which may be true, but if you want an example of choosing politics over statesmanship, look no further. This was a brilliant political maneuver. He passed the buck for all those months and now he's using them as a scapegoat for his failed policy. He'll reshuffle the chairs and start the cycle over again.
   
   
   • Agreed. Your analysis on this point is solid. The only caveat I would make is that it may have appeared a "brilliant maneuver", but the fact is his party got "thumped" in the election and his approval ratings are in the crapper. It may have been a brilliant strategy, but it failed. Your point here is a high quality one.

You may well read this dialogue and decide you agree with danny over me. If that is the case, I respect your opinion. There are no easy answers there, and intelligent people can disagree on the best course of action.

All In.

Where have all the statesmen gone?

Though President Bush is a lame duck at this point, and though is approval ratings are dismal, and though the Bush-haters have gone from the minority to the majority, he is still the President. He is still the Commander-in-Chief. He is still our head of government and head of state. Tonight, for better or worse, he will be the President, not a lame duck.

Every official and news outlet says the same thing: 20,000 more troops to Iraq.

By all accounts the Liberals in Congress are going to try to block funding for this measure. The Constitutionality of that move is highly questionable. For more practical purposes, it is unlikely that the Liberals have the votes in Congress to do such a thing. What has been disappointing to hear is the blatant political maneuvering and emotionalism dripping from the lips of members of both parties who oppose this move.

There are several opponents of this move who are rational, well reasoned, intelligent, and who seem to be genuinely concerned about doing what is best for America. Unfortunately, those people are in the minority.

Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Olympia Snow (yes, a GOPer) have all been guilty of this emotional politicization. Reid, the Senate Majority leader, said he would only consider an increase in troop levels if the President agreed to start withdrawing troops in six months. I can understand that sentiment. However, I can't agree with that reasoning. Though it sounds nice, it assumes failre and is simplistic in nature. In short, it is political pandering, not statesmanship.

Please hear me out before you think I am just bashing anyone who opposes sending more troops.

There are many ways this thing can play out, but let's take the extremes on both ends and weigh them against each other. On one side: we send in 20,000 troops, they become targets and are resented by ordinary Iraqis; violence escalates further; U.S. casualties go up by 20% (there will be about 16% more troops there), and the troop surge is a miserable failure; President Bush will have played his hand and lost; There will be no choice but to set the date for a withdrawal. Cost: over six months about 900 American casualties and probably $50-75 billion dollars (very rough guesses).

On the other side: The troop surge is successful in quelling the violence in Baghdad, Sadr City, and Anbar Province; terrorists are driven from major cities; Sunni and Shia militias are disarmed; neighborhoods become safe again; political stability is achieved, freeing Sunnis and Shiites to compromise without bloodshed; Iraq becomes (long-term) a stabilizing force in the region.

Is one American life lost a tragedy? Yes. Are people justified in wanting to save the lives of our soldiers? Yes. Is this a costly gamble? Yes.

If we bottom line this proposition, what we must ask is this: do the rewards outweigh the risks? There is no higher stakes game going on in the world. This is no time to make emotion-driven decisions. Saying, "sure you can have troops if you pull out in six months" is pure politics. It assumes failure. It does not truly account for the difficulty and gravity of the situation. What if things are on the upswing in five months? What if the move is moderately successful and Iraq is on the slow but very steady and obvious track up? We need tough decision, not nice-sounding platitudes

Bush 43 gambled his entire Presidency, his standing in history, and his reputation on the Iraq War. So far, it was a bet that he has lost. Assuming that tonight President Bush does what is expected of him, it will be the equivalent of pushing in all his chips. It is a move that cannot be repeated and one that will either save Iraq or send the U.S. down a road to a Vietnamesque pull-out.

Is this a good move? I don't know. But I do know that whatever the President does, and whatever the Congress does in response, must be based on sound reasoning, not emotion-driven, Freakshow politics.

We need statesmen, not politicians.

Something for Nothing

[Editor's Note: Thanks to Baxter CG for his guest post yesterday. It was quality, as always. End Editor's Note]


Everyone wants something for nothing.

Yesterday, California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, unveiled his health care plan to cover all those in his state. It would require that all adults have health insurance. The cost for covering the currently uninsured will be spread out among individuals, employers, doctors, hospitals, and the state.

This proposal will be fighting an uphill battle. Doctors and hospitals will oppose it (they are asked to pay 2% and 4% respectively into a state "pot" for health care). Businesses, both large and small will oppose it. Conservatives (though a rare breed on the Left Coast) will oppose the government mandate/entitlement/largess.

All that makes sense, since people don't want to pay for something that someone else gets. Doctors and hospitals, the ones providing the service, are being asked to pay for part of it. Can you imagine the government requiring the supermarket to pay for part of your groceries? Or the Movie theater to pay for part of your ticket? Or the mechanic to pay for part of your transmission? That's essentially what this is. I know that we are dealing with a very emotional subject. Even so, it is, at the end of the day, a business for the doctor and the hospital.

Putting all that aside, I was shocked and dismayed to read this line from one news story about this: "Unions balked at the requirements for individuals, calling them a tax on the middle class." Wow.

This should be the ultimate proof that people will always find something to complain about. Again, it makes sense for businesses, doctors, or hospitals to be upset about this. They are paying for something they don't receive. But for unions to complain that people have to pay at all is preposterous.

Everyone wants something for nothing.

As a society, we can't be takers. We must pay our fair share. It makes no difference whether it is food or clothing or health care--all are necessary for survival. To expect someone else to have to provide us these basic needs at absolutely no cost...well, I have no harsh enough words for this idea.

Please hear me clearly: I am not bashing the Governor's plan, though if given a vote I would not support it. What I am bashing is the idea that someone else must pay for every dime of our basic needs. Is affordable health insurance a goal we should strive for? Absolutely. Is expecting someone else to pay for all our basic needs something we should make our goal? Absolutely not.

I know not whether this plan will pass, but I know this: if it does there will be those who want even more. The takers take, and never stop taking. Let us be earners and pay our part and be thankful for what we have.

Where Are We Now?

Several days ago I posted this message in response to a thread on Tyranny of the Minority:

...do you really think that we live in a greatly unequal society? It’s a debate that I have been kicking around with many friends lately. I say no. Whatever racism that still exists is a from a whacked out few that causes a great deal of problems for those of us who are indeed not racist in the least….not to mention, it is much easier to prove someone has acted like a racist than it is to prove someone has not acted like a racist…which creates a false negative impression. Secondly, I feel as though there is way too much attention given to the negative perspective on race: it goes like this, "Minorities, especially black are still not 100% equal and we are still fighting for the rights the over-privileged white. The only way it will ever happen is through laws that force people to hire us, admit us in to college, or even provide some small form or reparations. Its disgusting, this world." To me that is an argument that is forever divisive and will never lead to a solid and diverse coalition of humans working hand in hand to stop the few who still are divided by color. In my mind society has made, and continues to make great strides on the issue of race…the debate on race should be phrased in this manor: "Minorities and black people have more rights and more equal opportunities to succeed than any people of any color of any era. Now is the time and opportunity to attack poor reading and test scores among our youth, so that they are prepared to be extremely successful in life. Now is the time to work on social issues like black on black violence and the infatuation with gang culture. Now is the time to bring families together instead of breaking them apart. Now is the time to be accountable to mistakes made...to be accountable for our actions...now it the time to take the rights and privileges and opportunities we have and make our ancestors proud. Make them proud by doing what's right...showing them that their fight for freedom...fight to sit at a lunch counter...fight to drink from a public fountain...right to be heard in government did not stop there...but propels us into a glorious future!" If I made those comments at an NAACP convention I would be called the spawn of David Duke. Why? Because it does not fit the action line of almost every civil rights leader since the death of MLK (whom I believe is a great American hero and different from Jackson/Sharpton/etc)...the action line of we have been wronged...we still are being wronged...and someone must pay.

So, the question is why bring it up again? Well...this is a great debate that I am tossing around with colleagues, friends, and myself and I am desperate for more opinions and thoughts. So far, the commentary on this blog has been excellent and I value your views. My concerns:

(A) Am I out of touch...you see my opinion above...am I blind to the injustice?

(B) Are others correct...are we still a greatly unequal society?

(C) Do whites still have tremendous privileges that other minorities do not?

(D) Do we understand the implications of (or are we) using race as the easy answer for some of out great social issues in this country...especially in education...or are we blinded by race and therefore unable to find the true problem and solutions?

I would love to hear what you have to say...please share.

*Note: Thank you to k. randolph for allowing me to contribute to this blog. I have great respect for him and his views on a variety of topics.

Left Behind

[Editor's Note: We've been talking much about the 2008 election, so it's time to take a break and have a good ol' policy piece. Today, it's education. Check back in tomorrow for a first ever guest post on the VoterVault as Baxter CG will be asking some tough questions about race in America. End Editor's Note]

American schools are the single most socialized part of American society. It is free for everyone, taxes pay for it, it is run by the state, and on the whole its quality is poor. That is socialism to a tee.

There are very good schools out there, but sadly, those are the exception rather than the rule. Journalists, politicians, celebrities, businesspeople, and athletes have called the low quality of our schools "a crisis". Bill Gates is on a mission to change our schools. Tiger Woods has opened several "Tiger Woods' Institutes" in California. Oprah has done several specials to draw attention to the problem. Everyone who really wants to make our schools effective in producing people who can be successful in the new global economy knows that radical change is needed.

Everyone, sadly, except those with the power to make the changes.

A few days ago a report on education was published by the National Council on Education and the Economy. I've the executive summary PDF, and if their plan could be implemented it would likely take America's schools back to the top among the modernized world. Without question, their call for change is a radical one. For my part, I'll say that I largely agree with them, so I'll just lay out for you what they recommend and you can make your own analysis. Here goes:

Their premises are these:

• Our current schools were build for an age of industrialization, not an age of globalization.
• Without making radical changes in our educational system America will continue to fall further behind as global competition kicks our butts.
• There is plenty of money in the system, but it is largely wasted.
• To use their words, "The problem is not with our educators. It is with the system in which they work." Therefore, a radical restructuring is needed.

As the global economy keeps changing, more and more work--even highly skilled/educated/creative work--will go to those who will work for the least (e.g. India and China). If, however, our education system changes, here's how American industries could look:If we don't change, expect that you could exchange the places of "In The United States" and "In less developed countries".

Here are some of their recommendations:

• Create a set of Board exams that would determine your post-high school course. Get a high enough score, you can go to community or technical college as early as 11^th grade. Get a higher score and you can stay in high school and study for a second set of boards. No one is allowed to just "slide by". No social promotion allowed. If you fail your boards you keep studying and try again. Here's the general vision:It sounds pretty tough, but they did call this report Tough Choices or Tough Times.
• Recruit teachers from the top third of high school students going to college. To do this change teacher compensation from one that is "backloaded" with most money being spent on the oldest--and retired--teachers, and "make retirement benefits comparable to those of the better firms in the private sector". This would raise the salary of a starting teacher dramatically.
• Teachers would be employed by the state, not by local districts. There would be a state salary schedule, with increased pay for highly effective teachers, teachers in tough urban or very rural areas, teachers in fields where there are shortages (science and math).
• Teachers would have to have a bachelor's degree in the subject area he/she wishes to teach, and would have to pass a rigorous teacher performance exam.
• Schools would be operated by independent contractors and run by teachers. School boards and central office jobs would be geared toward assessing the effectiveness of the contractor, and determine if the company should be retained.
• State funding would go to each student, whose family could choose which contract school to send students to. Here's the awesome introduction of capitalism: "The competitive, data-based market, combined with the performance contracts themselves, would create schools that were constantly seeking to improve their performance.
• Students in highly disadvantaged areas will receive more money for school than other students.
• Set up adult and continuing education aimed at getting adults to pass state boards. Once a person is past school age they will not be shut out of the educations system.
• Create individual competitiveness accounts, similar to personal health savings accounts, that could be used only for adult job training later in life. The government's contribution would be $500 for every person at birth and would grow tax-free.

Pretty awesome if you ask me. The disappointing thing is that none of this will ever happen. The NEA is a force within both the Democratic party and the state legislatures in most states. They value the status quo. They think money, and money alone, is the magic bullet that will fix America's schools. They grade politicians with an "F" who don't buy into their status-quo-protecting ideal.

But may we see that there are indeed tough choices that must be made, and if they are not, we are in real trouble. May the Left lose their grip on the schools and free them to do what's best for students, not what's best for teachers.